Whether this disposition is appropriate for real estate sales business, notwithstanding the form of registration for rental business;

In light of the frequency and frequency of real estate transactions, the holding period, the scale of sale and purchase, the current status of real estate holding, etc., the real estate sales businessman who acquired and transferred real estate continuously and repeatedly for profit from the beginning.

Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 405,470,758 against the Plaintiff on June 17, 2005 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 30, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired one real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the separate sheet”) and transferred it on January 31, 2002. On March 15, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “the instant two real estate”) and transferred it on July 25, 2002, and on April 25, 2001, acquired the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter “the instant three real estate”) and transferred it on August 30, 202.

B. On June 17, 2005, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing KRW 405,470,790 on the total value-added tax of KRW 171,073,960, and value-added tax of KRW 234,396,790 for two years of 2002 on the ground that the transfer of the Plaintiff’s instant real estate 1,2, and 3 real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was made as part of real estate sales, and thus, it constitutes a transaction falling under the supply of goods under Article 1(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The acquisition and transfer of the instant real estate does not constitute real estate sales business, and the Plaintiff comprehensively succeeded to all rights and obligations with respect to each of the instant real estate to the transferee, and thus, even though it does not fall under the supply of goods pursuant to Article 6(6) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the instant disposition that imposed value-added tax is unlawful on deeming that the Defendant was the transfer of each of the instant

(b) relevant statutes;

○ Supply of goods under Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods pursuant to all contractual and legal grounds.

(6) The goods falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall not be deemed the supply of goods:

2. Transfer of business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That this shall not apply in case where an entrepreneur delivers a tax invoice under Article 16, and as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(7) Matters necessary for the supply of goods under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, transfer of business and payment of taxes in kind.

(2) For the purpose of the main sentence of Article 6 (6) 2 of the Act, the term “those as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” means comprehensively succeeding to all rights and obligations with respect to the business at each place of business (including cases of a division meeting the requirements under Article 46 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act and cases of a change in the type of business other than the business succeeded by the transferee). In this case, even if the transferee succeeds to the business without including those falling under any of the following subparagraphs among rights and obligations with respect to the business, it shall be deemed that the relevant business has been comprehensively succeeded:

1. The amount receivable;

2. A document concerning accounts payable;

3. Land, buildings, etc. not directly related to the relevant business as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

(3) The term “cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in the proviso of Article 6 (6) 2 of the Act means the case where the tax amount collected by the transferor of business under Article 15 of the Act is returned and paid under Article 18 or 19 of the Act.

○ Scope of business under Article 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act

(2) For the purpose of Article 2 (2) of the Decree, the term "business prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy" means the business of selling or selling real estate (including the case of selling or selling real estate by self-construction or other buildings for residence or non-residential use) or the business of acquiring real estate at least once during one taxation period for the purpose of business and selling it at least twice by indicating its business purposes

C. Determination

(1) Whether the transaction of real estate was conducted as part of real estate sales and constitutes the supply of goods subject to taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act ought to be determined in light of social norms by considering whether the transaction was conducted for profit and whether the transaction was continued and repeated to the extent that it can be seen as business activity in light of its size, frequency, mode, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8758, Oct. 11, 1996). Even if the real estate was purchased after the real estate was registered as a real estate sales businessman and the temporary building was leased after its registration, if it can be deemed as falling under the business activity of the real estate sales businessman, the income shall be subject to taxation under the Value-Added Tax Act. The transfer does not constitute "transfer of business" that does not constitute "transfer of business which does not constitute the supply of goods under Article 6 (6) of the Value-Added Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8617, Oct.

(2) In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 4-1, 2, and 3-3, the plaintiff acquired real estate over 10 times including each of the instant real estate from April 25, 2001 to March 6, 2003, and transferred real estate over 4 times. Each of the instant real estate in this case was transferred within 3,4 months after the acquisition. In light of the frequency and frequency of the Plaintiff’s real estate transaction in this case, its holding period, size of the sale, possession of real estate, etc., the plaintiff can be deemed to have engaged in real estate transaction by acquiring and transferring real estate continuously and repeatedly for profit purposes from the original date.

In addition, Article 1(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that real estate shall be acquired at least once during one taxation period for business purposes, and that real estate shall be deemed to be engaged in real estate sales business if two or more times are sold, and the above provision is an exemplary provision that can be seen as real estate sales business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu17522, Sept. 9, 194; 94Nu6352, Sept. 23, 1994). Since the transaction of real estate in this case 2, 3, and 4 of the attached list No. 4 is considered to have been acquired and sold at least once during one taxable period, it is sufficient to view that the Plaintiff’s transaction of each of the real estate in this case including this is considered to have been conducted as real estate sales business.

In addition, as long as the Plaintiff continues to trade real estate repeatedly due to business activities, even if he/she had completed business registration as a lessor during the period of possession of real estate and paid the value-added tax thereon, it is difficult to deem that such act affects the business feasibility of the real estate sales businessman (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu10192, Oct. 24, 1997). On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s above act of leasing real estate is conducted as part of the real estate sales business, notwithstanding the form of registration of the rental business operator, and thus, the transfer of each real estate in this case is limited to the supply of specific goods as a real estate sales broker, and it is difficult to deem that

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit on a different premise.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.